Wednesday, March 08, 2006

2) Even with permission the likelihood of the proceedure being successful is pretty low, less than 50% even with three cycles on women who haven't had treatment for cancer. And there are only six frozen embryos so more cycles wouldn't be possible.

3) Why on earth do they insist on freexing embryos - why not freeze eggs? I understand at the moment they're a little bit better at the former, but the latter is still possible.

4) Why do we have a law in this country which says that Ms Evans can't draw up a legal document absolving her ex-partner of responsibility for the child. Surely if everybody in the situation is in agreement about who is responsible for the potential child, it should be possible to legalise that.

But instead I'll say this... What a horrible man Howard Johnston is. I can honestly say from all my ex-boyfriends (hundreds of them...), even the ones who never returned my CDs or went out the next week and tried to chat my sister up, if they were in the reverse situation I would let them use the embryos and be glad to help them out. She's had life-threatening cancer which has left her infertile. Doesn't that provoke a little sympathy in the man?

1 comment:

I've been saying number 4 over and over for a few days now. But in the end they could do what they normally do: ignore the father. Let's face it, the fathers ordered to pay child support rarely get penalised for failing to pay. This time they should ignore him. Not a big stretch.